Juvenile animal studies and pediatric drug development: a European regulatory perspective

During the workshop organized by ILSI/HESI on May 5-6, 2010 on the value of juvenile animal toxicity studies, the implementation of the European Pediatric Regulation and in particular the review process of the nonclinical part of the Pediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) were described. A PIP is intended to outline the development of a medicinal product in the pediatric population (i.e. quality, safety, efficacy of the medicine and timing of studies); it is reviewed and agreed by the Pediatric Committee (PDCO) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The Nonclinical Working Group (NcWG) supports the PDCO in the review process of the nonclinical part of a PIP and is composed of members from the PDCO, the EMA Safety Working Party, additional experts from national competent authorities and the FDA. This article summarizes the NcWG review process and outcomes of 97 approved or ongoing PIPs, from the establishment of the NcWG in November 2008 to May 2010, as presented during the workshop. Juvenile animal studies were proposed by the applicant in 33% or required by the NcWG in 26% of the PIPs. The requirements were mainly motivated by concerns regarding potential developmental toxicities, in view of the young age of the pediatric population to be investigated, the lack of knowledge concerning the maturation of the pharmacological target, the lack of sufficient (non)clinical data, observed toxicities in the adult (non)clinical studies and the long duration of the intended treatments. Most juvenile animal studies were in the therapeutic areas of oncology, infectious diseases and endocrinology. In about 14% of the PIPs submitted, the NcWG requested either justifications of, or amendments to the study designs proposed by the applicants (e.g. justification of endpoints, study duration, species selection and timing with regards to clinical pediatric studies). Generally, only one species was selected or proposed for the juvenile studies, the rat being the most prevalent. The number of juvenile studies initially proposed by the applicant plus those requested by the NcWG was higher than the number of studies included in the "key binding elements" of the PIP opinions. This apparent discrepancy was mainly due to additional information or justifications submitted by the applicant during the clock stop. It was noted that the PIPs initially submitted often lacked information relevant to the nonclinical evaluation. Therefore, during the workshop, the need to provide scientifically based justifications when no juvenile animal studies are proposed in the initial PIP submission was stressed.